The hunter vs Military sniper

[JoeC]

I've been thinking about this. If you pitted a professional hunter with all available gear to choose from versus a military sniper and his gear, who do you think would be better?

The sniper has the advantage of very professional training and high end equipment.

The hunter has the advantage of experience.

One area the sniper would probably win is extended range around say...800-1000 yards. But then a lot of civilian marksman can hit targets at that distance just as easily, some with iron sights even.

Lets put the competition to around 200-600 yards.

As for weapons, any weapon is applicable.

You know, that brings up another point. I've often wondered about a dependability/efficiency comparison between military sniper weapons and hunting rifles.

Anyways, discuss.

[elSquid]

I've been thinking about this. If you pitted a professional hunter with all available gear to choose from versus a military sniper and his gear, who do you think would be better?

The sniper has the advantage of very professional training and high end equipment.

The hunter has the advantage of experience.


The sniper can call for arty and airstrikes.

The hunter wears a dayglow orange vest.

:eek:

-- Michael

[doc1buc]

Dude, seriously, Sniper would wax the hunter. Ever hear of counter-hunter deer? Didn't think so.

[Ten Rounder]

At least the hunter can stand up to take a pee, and the hunter will have a stash of beer.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

You make it seem like hunters go out on the prowl for hours stalking a deer. All too often 'hunting' means driving on a dirt road until you see a deer, getting out, and shooting it.

[Maltese Falcon]

The hunter has the advantage of experience.

A sniper may have much more experience, especially with targets who know you are trying to "engage" them.

I vote mil-sniper on my team any day.

[Doheny]

A sniper may have much more experience, especially with targets who know you are trying to "engage" them.

I vote mil-sniper on my team any day.

I agree. Look at the number of confirmed kills some of this guys have: http://www.snipercentral.com/snipers.htm

How many people have even seen that many deer???

[professionalcoyotehunter]

What if you are a trained Sniper who is a hunter?

[Bobula]

Only chance a hunter would have is if it was a non tree stand tree bow hunter.

[30Cal]

I'm going to vote for the paid professional.

[RP1911]

Early on in the Lebanese civil war circa 1973, the Seminov was used for sniping and had much success until better equipment was sent in from 'supporting' countries on each side.

The weaponry evolved to Dragunovs predominantly on one side and M14s and AR15s on the other side.

[Maltese Falcon]

....dang, all this sniper talk, makes we want to dig out "Enemy at the Gates" from my collection for refresher view.

[professionalcoyotehunter]

I think the sniper in Saving Private Ryan was much better.

[Maltese Falcon]

I think the sniper in Saving Private Ryan was much better.

Yep, I agree. Unfortunately, his best parts only last about 5 minutes in the tower. :(

[professionalcoyotehunter]

I agree.

[JoeC]

Here is what I'm thinking.

I'm imagining a competition of skill.

I wouldn't consider people who drive around and kill whatever shows up to be true hunters.

I've seen shows on all those sporting channels of real hunters who sit and wait for hours for the right animal to come along. I've seen hunters who stalk their prey, have all the cammo crap, and all sorts of technical doodads to stalk what their after.

And then it doesn't take military training to teach yourself to hit targets out to 1000 yards either.

So back to the skill. A sniper has his rifle, camo suit, technical stuff, and his training/experience. Then the hunter has his rifle, camo suit, his technical stuff and his training/experience.

I'm leaning towards the sniper being better mostly from stereotypes of snipers being elite long distance killing machines. But why? What makes the sniper any better?

Both people have to sneak around and be silent, they have to blend in and hide, they have to be able to kill or disable in one shot, and they have to be able to reach out to considerable distances.

[tankerman]

There are two types of hunters, ones that can make a shot (a majority of the time) and those that shake with excitement and urinate on themselves, then blow the shot.

I bet a good portion of snipers have hunting background and are not just a bunch of paper punchers. I also bet most of the military's best rifle shooters grew up hunting and not paper punching.

[forgiven]

Don't discount us deer hunters. Our prey hears, see's and smells a hell of a lot better than humans do. Besides, my hunch is the majority of snipers were hunters first.

[professionalcoyotehunter]

Most that I have met were hunters.

[RobG]

The sniper can call for arty and airstrikes.

The hunter wears a dayglow orange vest.

:eek:

-- Michael

At least the hunter can stand up to take a pee, and the hunter will have a stash of beer.

These:rofl:

[Bobula]

Don't discount us deer hunters. Our prey hears, see's and smells a hell of a lot better than humans do. Besides, my hunch is the majority of snipers were hunters first.

Our prey can't even get out of the way of a minivan! :Insert Ron Whites van vs. deer joke here:

[forgiven]

Our prey can't even get out of the way of a minivan! :Insert Ron Whites van vs. deer joke here:

:rofl2:

[jaymz]

A sniper and a hunter are the exact same thing. If I am killing deer - I'm a hunter. If I'm killing people - I'm a sniper!:43:

[cassius]

Dude, seriously, Sniper would wax the hunter. Ever hear of counter-hunter deer? Didn't think so.

I have heard of counter-hunter hunters, however.

/where d'ya think the ghillie suit came from?


/i've got no opinion in the matter. silly mental fappery.

[Rob454]

You make it seem like hunters go out on the prowl for hours stalking a deer. All to often 'hunting' means driving on a dirt road until you see a deer, getting out, and shooting it.

Ive done both. Ive followed a deer for 8 miles tracking it and finally shooting it from about 250-300 yards
And Ive also done the driving down a dirt road the stupid bastard sticks his head up and here I come out of the truck hes loking at me and bang. venison for dinner. granted most hunters drive down dirt roads. Dude when i go hunting I take my pack with my camelback a few MREs and Im gone all day long in the wilderness. i dont see people and 90% of the time ive gotten my deer.

As for a competition while most civilians cannot compare to even a sharpshooter, expert or marksman in the military there are PLENTY of civilians who can shoot just as well if not better. Example The only three people I simply cannot out shoot are 3 of my buddes. Well that and my dad whos been in the military and is a ex SWAT guy. Two are Marine scouts and the other is a army green beanie. but then again theire still training and in the military whiole I only shoot once a month maybe twice. Granted most of my friends dont shoot at all so its fairly unfair to compare that way but.....

As far as im concerned the military sniper has a advantage. The thing is sometimes peopel are stupider than deer. At least deer run away from danger. No looking around just bam gone. people look around look at their buddy say " hey Ahmed did you hear someth.... pop wet splat. Ahmed starts to scream.
but a professional hunter can give a sniper a run for his money.

[THT]

Sniper, hands down. I mean, they're basically human hunters...

[Jorge]

Depends on the individual, circumstances, location, etc. I think an experienced hunter in his neck of the woods could have the advantage.

[doc1buc]

I have heard of counter-hunter hunters, however.

/where d'ya think the ghillie suit came from?


/i've got no opinion in the matter. silly mental fappery.
Scottish Gamekeepers!

[Doheny]

The thing is sometimes peopel are stupider than deer.

New sig line?

[Beelzy]

Hunter.

A hunter stalks his prey which can smell and hear and see better than him.

A sniper stalks humans, they aren't the smartest animal I hear. :p

[capitol]

Military Snipers consider any hit on a human a success. A hunter needs to kill his target.

A Police Sniper versus a Hunter is an entire different story.

[SCMA-1]

Why does this thread even exist?:rolleyes:

[Diabolus]

Once we figure this out, we should debate MOA vs. MIL.

[Tweak338]

My money the Mil-Sniper.
The training they receive is far greater then the experience of a hunter.



I've seen shows on all those sporting channels of real hunters who sit and wait for hours for the right animal to come along. I've seen hunters who stalk their prey, have all the cammo crap, and all sorts of technical doodads to stalk what their after.


Snipers are trained to wait, days for a single shot.

[xibunkrlilkidsx]

Why does this thread even exist?:rolleyes:
obviously its still going because there is enough curiousity here.

maybe we should take this one to deadliest warrior on SPIKE:rolleyes:


sniper. custom ghillie suit to the location and tons of traning in being able to spot anything left behind and recognize it.

[Two Shots]

All depends on who gets spotted first, my money is on the Sniper.

[gdun]

I've seen shows on all those sporting channels of real hunters who sit and wait for hours for the right animal to come along. I've seen hunters who stalk their prey, have all the cammo crap, and all sorts of technical doodads to stalk what their after.
.


hahaa that's whitetail hunting. Most of the deer i see while hunting is not on stand, but spot and stalk. You see a deer withing 300 yards, you shoot if you have a good enough shot. If 350+, then you get close enough.

[Bizcuits]

In my opinion military snipers (not D-Marksmen) would clean the clocks of almost every single hunter. Sure there are a lot of hunters who are great shots and amazing at stalking deer etc. However how many have flir and aerial reconnaissance? All a military sniper needs is a predator drone flying over head with active flir and he'll know exactly where the hunters are at.

Also how many hunters work with a spotter? Two sets of trained eyes are better then one.

This topic is one of the reasons though why I wouldn't go running into the Hills if a major SHTF scenario ever happened. I'm not a hunter or even into distance shooting. I think I'd survive a lot longer in a house to house urban setting then in the hills.

[Bigballaizm]

What if you are a trained Sniper who is a hunter?

Actually the first snipers were hunters... I saw a sniper show on the military channel a few months back.

[Blue]

Ya'll are nuts, my money is on the demoncrats.

[Rob454]

New sig line?

LOL I didnt say i was stupid i just get to my two finger typing and i hit the letters the wrong way. I got big fingers dude give me a break
Rob

[Rob454]

In my opinion military snipers (not D-Marksmen) would clean the clocks of almost every single hunter. Sure there are a lot of hunters who are great shots and amazing at stalking deer etc. However how many have flir and aerial reconnaissance? All a military sniper needs is a predator drone flying over head with active flir and he'll know exactly where the hunters are at.

s.


I think the OP was meant for a one on one kind of thing not with air, back up type support. I think everyone here can agree that a sniper just simply has the edge due to superior training. Within limits a sniper can do longer more accurate shots than a hunter there is no argument about that but snipers are still human and you dont have to be good sometimes. Sometimes lucky works just as well.

Reason you see a lot of back east hunting where the guy is up in a tree waiting is because deer back east are very skittish unlike the deer out west. They also do big drives back there also. Most people get bored waiting for a animal to come within range. Thats where the sniper has the edge. Where a civilian will start fidgeting, wanting a cigarette or start moving cause its hot/cold/ abug is crawling on them/ they gotta go #1 or #2/ hungry etc. a sniper is trained to sit down stay still STFU and wait for the target to come into range

[!@#$]

shooting is by far the easiest part of becoming a sniper.

field craft and target ID is where the game is won.

[randy]

The name Sniper came from hunters. Sniping is based on hunting techniques that have been improved on. Ghillie suits came from hunters.

[CSDGuy]

I figure sniping is hunting... just adapted to the requirements of what's being hunted. Hunters don't normally want to be detected by their prey, so they adapt their skills to what's being hunted. I figure that the biggest difference between "hunters" and "Snipers" is that the latter get more trigger time and more time practicing the fieldcraft - it's their "day job"...

There are other skills of a military sniper that are quite valuable... but if I were to pit an average mil sniper against an average hunter, in a force-on-force event, I think the average mil sniper would win, hands down.

[Acorn556]

I figure sniping is hunting... just adapted to the requirements of what's being hunted. Hunters don't normally want to be detected by their prey, so they adapt their skills to what's being hunted. I figure that the biggest difference between "hunters" and "Snipers" is that the latter get more trigger time and more time practicing the fieldcraft - it's their "day job"...

There are other skills of a military sniper that are quite valuable... but if I were to pit an average mil sniper against an average hunter, in a force-on-force event, I think the average mil sniper would win, hands down.

Sniping IS hunting, just happens to be a little smarter than a deer, elephant, boar, moose, elk, etc. Hunters go out for a couple hours, sit in a tent and drink beer, then go home. Snipers stay out there for a little longer and have to make due. I'd pick a sniper/paid professional as winning against a hunter. The Sniper is going after another human, the hunter has to go against something that probably couldn't figure out the guy in the orange vest and hat has a gun.

[Stormfeather]

Most people who have responded have absolutely no idea what a sniper does, so Im not even going to attempt an explanation to the armchair QB's.

Here is what I'm thinking.
I'm imagining a competition of skill.
I wouldn't consider people who drive around and kill whatever shows up to be true hunters.
I've seen shows on all those sporting channels of real hunters who sit and wait for hours for the right animal to come along. I've seen hunters who stalk their prey, have all the cammo crap, and all sorts of technical doodads to stalk what their after.
And then it doesn't take military training to teach yourself to hit targets out to 1000 yards either.
So back to the skill. A sniper has his rifle, camo suit, technical stuff, and his training/experience. Then the hunter has his rifle, camo suit, his technical stuff and his training/experience.
I'm leaning towards the sniper being better mostly from stereotypes of snipers being elite long distance killing machines. But why? What makes the sniper any better?
Both people have to sneak around and be silent, they have to blend in and hide, they have to be able to kill or disable in one shot, and they have to be able to reach out to considerable distances.

You are correct, its a competition of skill. A hunter is going to stay out just long enough to get his shot on target. A skilled hunter will be out there for as long as it takes, or until he decides hes had enough.
A sniper does the same thing a hunter does to get to his operating area, then he has to compile range cards, designate a exit strategy, and then wait. The difference is he has to wait until he target comes into play. which may be hours, or it may be days, once he has his firing point/hide, he doesnt move from it, hes there until the jobs done. Totally different from your conventional hunter.

[light fighter]

if its a range shoot i would say its pretty square,,
but on a mission were lives are at stake ,obsevation and timing of engagment are two crucial factors that would eliminate the hunter . just my .02

[Rwnielsen]

The sniper can call for arty and airstrikes.

The hunter wears a dayglow orange vest.

:eek:

-- Michael

Well said ;)

[johnrunner89]

I say the Mil-sniper...more specifically...Bob Lee Swagger :33::D

[bigstick61]

I think people would be surprised at how a really good hunter would fare in such a situation (and the sniper would not have access to anything other than what's on him, if we are actually making this a competition). I really good hunter (amateur or professional), with a lot of experience in a more demanding environment, like, say, Africa, who is a master marksman, and has excellent knowledge of bushcraft and is allowed to choose what weapons and equipment he will take with him could probably fare pretty well, even moreso if he has military experience (especially a combat veteran).

[chickenfried]

I think the topic's a little out there. Sniper by a long shot. Animals don't shoot back.

[HUTCH 7.62]

Hunter would win because the hunter would have a better selection of calibers to pick from 7.62 is not gonna cut it for large game at say 1000 yards

[audihenry]

The assumption that the average military sniper is somehow an amazing man of skill is ludicrous. Take the best sniper and the best hunter, each with hundreds of kills (you won't find any of the former anymore), then you'll have an interesting situation.

The twist? Make them hunt each other! :D

[Prowler]

Sniper all day long. Good hunters aren't used to being stalked by humans.

[johnrunner89]

Sniper all day long. Good hunters aren't used to being stalked by humans.

Plus, snipers usually always have a spotter...two heads are better than one :p

[yellowfin]

What has been totally missing from this thread is addressing that there are lots of different forms of hunting with different skill sets which would vary considerably in both method and results when competing with or against a military person. Not even all better or worse, but different in how they might approach things, so different situations. There's a lot of difference between a deer hunter from Texas (and even south Texas vs west Texas) and an elk hunter from Wyoming, and more still from a south Alabama turkey hunter. Use aerial maps, GPS, scouting, etc? Why yes we do! Wait for hours or a day or two for a shot, possibily plan for a week or months? Yep. Hike for miles carrying gear? Sometimes for me, always for the MT/SD/NV/WY guys. Cook, eat, sleep, etc out in the open for days? Once in a while, definitely capable of it, wife hates it though, says her legs get too itchy. Sit still for hours not even moving an eyelash? That's the first thing you learn as a turkey hunter in Dixie if you're worth anything, but not applicable to dove or squirrel or coyote, which also can get into highly honed skills.

As to whether a military guy is better than us, well, he has to be better than the human senses watching him. That may or may not be as good or better than animal senses or be as wary or suspicious. A turkey or an elk can see you blink at something around a mile. Mountain goats and Dall sheep even farther. Hearing and smell are far beyond any human, ten to several thousand times sharper. They don't get tired, drunk, or preoccupied much either. You say a hunter isn't worrying about being detected and hunted by humans. A hunter is hunting something that's been stalked every day of its life by something or another. A soldier may be full time, but no matter what they will never be on call from birth every second of their natural lifespan, nor will they be asked to compete against something that is.

Human targets are also more predictable, usually having motives, utilities, and patterns which can be reliably determined- if you have to stop someone from going somewhere, generally that means you can find them there specifically. Game animals will throw hundreds of variables at you as to whether they're going to be when and where you think they'll be- they don't have to be anywhere on any timetable.

It all depends on who you're talking about on both sides and very much upon the scenario. I'd say it's a draw barring any further info.

[Requiem]

shooting is by far the easiest part of becoming a sniper.

field craft and target ID is where the game is won.

This

I say the Mil-sniper...more specifically...Bob Lee Swagger :33::D

And this.

PS: Thread is pointless

[Jonathan Doe]

I have been to two sniper school from two different organizations. Sniper training take a lot of effort. The sniper does not learn only the shooting skills, but field craft, camouflage, stalking, ranging, etc. I think the snipers have a slight edge, because they learn all the skills and have right equipments.

[yellowfin]

I have been to two sniper school from two different organizations. Sniper training take a lot of effort. The sniper does not learn only the shooting skills, but field craft, camouflage, stalking, ranging, etc. I think the snipers have a slight edge, because they learn all the skills and have right equipments.They still take breaks. They go to sleep, and don't have to constantly worry about being eaten from cradle to grave. They also don't likely have to catch every meal they ever eat. Least of all do they have to avoid at all times several creatures who are biologically engineered to catch them and devote their time to nothing else 24/7/365, every single second of it.

[The Director]

I wouldn't be too quick to discount the big and dangerous game hunters out there. Many here that have dismissed Hunters have obviously never gone truly big game hunting.

Go on a bear hunt once....better yet, a Grizzly hunt.

You go on one of those and you'll really know what a code brown in your shorts feels like (ask me how I know!).

Honestly - I'd rather get shot by a sniper than meet my end at the hand of a 900 pound grizzly. The Hunters I went with were expert trackers, outdoorsmen, and marksmen. Could probably shoot and kill anything that draws breath on this earth, man included.

[bigstick61]

I have been to two sniper school from two different organizations. Sniper training take a lot of effort. The sniper does not learn only the shooting skills, but field craft, camouflage, stalking, ranging, etc. I think the snipers have a slight edge, because they learn all the skills and have right equipments.

How many professional hunters who spend much of their time in the bush also don't have those sorts of skills? Or even some of the most renowned amateur hunters? Heck, some of those guys grew up in the bush, particularly the African ones. These sorts of skills are not exclusively military.

[Howie44]

[QUOTE=Stormfeather;2929529]Most people who have responded have absolutely no idea what a sniper does, so Im not even going to attempt an explanation to the armchair QB's.



I was just thinking the same thing as I was going through this ridiculous thread

CPL Neal
(former) Scout/Sniper
1/504 PIR
82nd Airborne
'86-'90

[Seesm]

Sniper 4 show.

[Sionadi]

Hunter. My hunting trips usually consist of slithering around the woods for a couple days until i get my deer, then and only then do i go back to camp.

[cryoguy]

I would put my money on the sniper. I don't know of very many hunters out there that can survive in the bush for days at a time without being detected by any other humans and still hit a 800 yd target after all of the mental/physical fatigue . And wearing a bright orange vest doesn't help the hunter in this case. The real question is can a hunter do the job of a sniper?

[Noraku81]

Why does this thread even exist?:rolleyes:

Seriously. Snipers practice by putting thousands of rounds down range every month and are in top physical and mental condition. Hunters can sit in a tree stand all day and be fat.

[bigstick61]

I would put my money on the sniper. I don't know of very many hunters out there that can survive in the bush for days at a time without being detected by any other humans and still hit a 800 yd target after all of the mental/physical fatigue . And wearing a bright orange vest doesn't help the hunter in this case. The real question is can a hunter do the job of a sniper?

I'm sure some of the African PHs can do this. Some certainly grew up in and around the bush.

[Maddog5150]

Most people who have responded have absolutely no idea what a sniper does, so Im not even going to attempt an explanation to the armchair QB's.



You are correct, its a competition of skill. A hunter is going to stay out just long enough to get his shot on target. A skilled hunter will be out there for as long as it takes, or until he decides hes had enough.
A sniper does the same thing a hunter does to get to his operating area, then he has to compile range cards, designate a exit strategy, and then wait. The difference is he has to wait until he target comes into play. which may be hours, or it may be days, once he has his firing point/hide, he doesnt move from it, hes there until the jobs done. Totally different from your conventional hunter.

I was thinking the same thing. I think most people here want to live out a fantasy of possibly being better than something they will never be able to aspire to. The same people who pray that Red Daw will actually happen so they have a chance to throw on their cammies, chest rigs, BB's and run around killing a professional military force while screaming wolverines.
No I'm not a sniper. I truly admire those men and they have the type of patience and fortitude that I can only wish to attain someday however on that note, I would not make excuses why I "could" be superior just because I am not nor could I be.
This thread is so full of fail. I cant wait till the "keyboard commando vs. Ranger/SEAL/SF/PJ" thread.

Hunter. My hunting trips usually consist of slithering around the woods for a couple days until i get my deer, then and only then do i go back to camp.

Couple of days? You must be proud. :rolleyes:

[chickenfried]

Who is a keyboard commando more likely to idolize and emulate a military sniper or a hunter?:p

I was thinking the same thing. I think most people here want to live out a fantasy of possibly being better than something they will never be able to aspire to. The same people who pray that Red Daw will actually happen so they have a chance to throw on their cammies, chest rigs, BB's and run around killing a professional military force while screaming wolverines.
No I'm not a sniper. I truly admire those men and they have the type of patience and fortitude that I can only wish to attain someday however on that note, I would not make excuses why I "could" be superior just because I am not nor could I be.
This thread is so full of fail. I cant wait till the "keyboard commando vs. Ranger/SEAL/SF/PJ" thread.



Couple of days? You must be proud. :rolleyes:

[esjohansen]

I guess you could sit here and compare sniper to hunter all day long, and argue that the hunter has better knowledge of the land he lives on in the states, and that he has more time "stalking deer" but in the end it comes down to one thing. Has the hunter, ever been hunted??? does he know how to evade and defeat other hunters? see, you can sit inside a hunting blind all day and pop up to shoot your deer when is comes to you all day long, but when you have no experience in field craft for survival, and another man's trying to kill you, how well will you fire while being shot at? how bold are you when another man is hunting you, and you become the deer? suddenly the table is turned, and you're the prey, and you must survive long enough to find your preditor, and then, and only then, will you be able to take YOUR shot at HIM. how well can your survive against another sniper is the question? how long can you wait it out hunting a man who is hunting you, before you hop in your pick-up and get the hell out of dodge? You see, you will not win against a sniper as a hunter. The only discussion here is how long will you last before he kills you, or you go home. That's what makes a soldier differant from a marksman; the soldier can shoot while being shot at, and does so gladly. Mixing call of duty with hunting does not make you a worthy apponent, just another cocky target in the sniper's corss-hairs.

[Gryff]

It takes skill to go up against something that shoots back. Sniper will win in every situation.

[Chk Chk Boom]

Go on a bear hunt once....better yet, a Grizzly hunt.

You go on one of those and you'll really know what a code brown in your shorts feels like (ask me how I know!).

When does it come out on DVD? :p

[OHOD]

Sniper.
Hands down.
No comparison.

[luchador768]

What if you are a trained Sniper who is a hunter?



My friend was recruited for the sniper program because of his hunting history, and he is a hell of a good shot. Most 18-20 year old kids that join up do not have experience putting metal to meat. He had been hunting since he could hold a rifle.

[dixieD]

I'm leaning towards the sniper being better mostly from stereotypes of snipers being elite long distance killing machines. But why? What makes the sniper any better? He has to be able to do all of that while be hunted himself.

[The Director]

When does it come out on DVD? :p

lol.....prolly never.

[Stockton]

This is comical....funny guys!

[PatriotnMore]

The Sniper program will take a good hunter, and hone them to a razor edge. Hunters may or may not have good field craft skills, and may not make a decent Sniper at all. I am sure many of us who hunt see hunters with little of no field craft skills often.

In addition, one can learn to be a very good shot, but again the Sniper training will make them a great one.

All can be learned, the difference is the Sniper has already been through formal training which was learned through real life scenarios, mistakes and paid for in blood.

My friend was recruited for the sniper program because of his hunting history, and he is a hell of a good shot. Most 18-20 year old kids that join up do not have experience putting metal to meat. He had been hunting since he could hold a rifle.

[The Director]

I was thinking the same thing. I think most people here want to live out a fantasy of possibly being better than something they will never be able to aspire to. The same people who pray that Red Daw will actually happen so they have a chance to throw on their cammies, chest rigs, BB's and run around killing a professional military force while screaming wolverines.


I get where you're going with this but in doing so you're completely excluding any resistance movements that have fought and engaged invading armies and inflicted devastating losses upon the enemy......these were partisans who used guerilla warfare to seriously hamper their foes.

If you think the citizenry can't go around killing "a professional military force" - and doing a very good job of it - then you haven't spent much time studying WW2.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Partisans_attack_village.jpg

[Maddog5150]

Ok so do you feel you yourself would be one? Tell me how easy it is to take another humans life, I really want to know from you. Is it like turning off a lightswitch? Or is it like killing a yote? Does all the hate keep you warm at night afterwords? Please tell me because I havent killed anyone and I dont fantasize about taking on elite members of our armed forces to make myself believe I am a better warrior than they are. If I do kill someone in a future deployment then so be it but I'm not going to compare my skills with others who have done so several times and they still come home and have the mental fortitude to hold their children and lead a normal life. Not everyone is that corageous. Those people who were partisans in WWII did what they had to do. I'm sure they didnt masturbate to red dawn and pray that it would actually happen or fantasize thinking, "oh i cant wait till thsoe days the nazis come over so I can get medevil on them!"

[The Director]

Hey Maddog,

Why all the hate, man? I support you guys with all my heart. And even though I do own basic web gear, I don't fancy myself as a member of some sort of resistance or Red Dawn type...there's simply nothing to resist at this point.

I think it behooves able bodied males to be armed and equipped in the event of some catastrophe. I think it does us all good to be prepared and stay on top of our shooting skills. Don't think that's bad at all.

I was simply responding to your post, and others like it in which some members of the military made it sound like they were the only ones capable of taking human life if the need arose, and pointed you to an example of WW2 resistance to make my point.

If you want proof of the fallacy that a modern, well equipped and superbly trained fighting force wins wars unequivocally and without resistance, look at Afghanistan. Those are for the most part stone age fighters, man.

Which brings us back to the original question: "I've been thinking about this. If you pitted a professional hunter with all available gear to choose from versus a military sniper and his gear, who do you think would be better?"

I don't know. But I wouldn't dismiss the hunter out of hand, as the Germans did to the soviet resistance, etc, etc, etc.

[Noraku81]

I was thinking the same thing. I think most people here want to live out a fantasy of possibly being better than something they will never be able to aspire to. The same people who pray that Red Daw will actually happen so they have a chance to throw on their cammies, chest rigs, BB's and run around killing a professional military force while screaming wolverines.
No I'm not a sniper. I truly admire those men and they have the type of patience and fortitude that I can only wish to attain someday however on that note, I would not make excuses why I "could" be superior just because I am not nor could I be.
This thread is so full of fail. I cant wait till the "keyboard commando vs. Ranger/SEAL/SF/PJ" thread.



Couple of days? You must be proud. :rolleyes:


Of course they pray for their Red Dawn scenarios! I mean why let the $1000's of dollars they spent looking Tacticool go to waste?

[Noraku81]

I get where you're going with this but in doing so you're completely excluding any resistance movements that have fought and engaged invading armies and inflicted devastating losses upon the enemy......these were partisans who used guerilla warfare to seriously hamper their foes.

If you think the citizenry can't go around killing "a professional military force" - and doing a very good job of it - then you haven't spent much time studying WW2.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Partisans_attack_village.jpg



You forgot one major thing though, the Germans were also fighting the Russians on the East Front and the English and Americans on the Western and Southern Fronts. The Dutch resistance did play its part but had Germany not been fighting professional armies and sending its best troops to those fronts, then they would have been anhilated. The Dutch resistance's main mission was to gather intelligence...and Operation Market Garden was widely viewed as a failure.

[Sillyguy]

i don't know about you guys...but when i go to a bar and want to pick up on chicks, i tell them that i'm an elite hunter and they go crazy! ;)

[The Director]

You forgot one major thing though, the Germans were also fighting the Russians on the East Front and the English and Americans on the Western and Southern Fronts. The Dutch resistance did play its part but had Germany not been fighting professional armies and sending its best troops to those fronts, then they would have been anhilated. The Dutch resistance's main mission was to gather intelligence...and Operation Market Garden was widely viewed as a failure.

The picture above is of Soviet resistance.

The point I am trying to make is simple. A professional army engaged in battle with armed citizenry does not necessarily ensure a win for the professional army.

If you disagree with this, look at Afghanistan. Can we beat them? Sure. Nuke 'em. Easy. Are we beating them? No. No amount of JDAMs, Daisy Cutters, bunker busters, MRAPS, or Strykers has beat them yet. Would you call the Taliban a professional army? or more like the "irregulars" of wars past?

The extension of this is the professional hunter v. the professional sniper, and as I said before, you cannot simply dismiss the civilian contingent out of hand.

[The Director]

Of course they pray for their Red Dawn scenarios! I mean why let the $1000's of dollars they spent looking Tacticool go to waste?

Is it also your opinion that a civilian should not possess combat boots, a chest rig for magazines, some basic web gear, and perhaps some armor?

I'm just curious.

[chickenfried]

Seems like you're going into a broader discussion of conventional vs. guerrilla warfare, rather than the specific scenario of mililtary sniper vs. hunter mano a mano.

Hey Maddog,

Why all the hate, man? I support you guys with all my heart. And even though I do own basic web gear, I don't fancy myself as a member of some sort of resistance or Red Dawn type...there's simply nothing to resist at this point.

I think it behooves able bodied males to be armed and equipped in the event of some catastrophe. I think it does us all good to be prepared and stay on top of our shooting skills. Don't think that's bad at all.

I was simply responding to your post, and others like it in which some members of the military made it sound like they were the only ones capable of taking human life if the need arose, and pointed you to an example of WW2 resistance to make my point.

If you want proof of the fallacy that a modern, well equipped and superbly trained fighting force wins wars unequivocally and without resistance, look at Afghanistan. Those are for the most part stone age fighters, man.

Which brings us back to the original question: "I've been thinking about this. If you pitted a professional hunter with all available gear to choose from versus a military sniper and his gear, who do you think would be better?"

I don't know. But I wouldn't dismiss the hunter out of hand, as the Germans did to the soviet resistance, etc, etc, etc.

[The Director]

Seems like you're going into a broader discussion of conventional vs. guerrilla warfare, rather than the specific scenario of mililtary sniper vs. hunter mano a mano.

Yeah, it's true. I think I veered off the path somewhere.....as I am prone to do!:D

Sorry for the threadjack!

[OneApart]

http://www.specialforces.com/store/customimages/catalog/design_thumbnails/A03320.jpg

MIL Sniper.

[Timberwolf]

This thread truely is like a question on a psych eval for there is no real answer. The two are not related except they both use weapons (normally a rifle) to kill breathing creatures while remaining undetected. Both require their own individual skill sets, that while similar, are not the same. This is much like asking who is better a NASCAR driver or a Formula One driver. Both may be excellant in the respective field but place them in the others and they may not fair as well.

[Noraku81]

Is it also your opinion that a civilian should not possess combat boots, a chest rig for magazines, some basic web gear, and perhaps some armor?

I'm just curious.

Its called sarcasm dude. But hey, if you want to spend the money on it, its your money and your passion.

[BigBamBoo]

............

[stagman]

Dont quote me, but I remember reading in the Army handbook somehere that a sniper should have an extensive hunting background... Doesnt that negate the debate?

IDK, I have met some pretty sloppy hunters, who wouldnt last 30 minutes in a VS situation. I dont know any snipers, but I would be willing to bet they are 100% squared away.

[bigstick61]

I just started reading "Death in the Tall Grass" by Peter Capstick today. To say that hunters do not deal with considerable hardship in the pursuit of game and face great dangers, or hunt something that is hunting them is downright false. Same with saying that they do not have excellent bushcraft/fieldcraft skills or excellent marksmanship skills, to include shooting under pressure (such as if you don't get a good shot off right then and there, you're dead). Some hunters have even had to deal with poachers or literally hunt poachers, or fight off terrorists. Some of these guys even grew up in the bush; Capstick himself recalled how he learned to stalk and capture birds with his hands as a kid in the backwoods of New Jersey. Some also have military experience. If you get a really good, 1st class professional hunter and give him and the sniper access to the same gear their opposite has access to and vice versa, I think the PH could give the sniper a run for his money. If we're talking about the once-a-year quail or deer hunter who lives in the city, or the dude shooting rabbits with a pistol from his truck, well, I think we can pretty much call that one. There are a wide variety of hunters, and I think it would be poor form to stereotype them.

[fegves2id]

Hah, it depends on who sees who first.....and the hunter had better be way above average.

[Rob454]

IDK, I have met some pretty sloppy hunters, who wouldnt last 30 minutes in a VS situation. .

Those arent hunters. theire just human shaped alcohol bottles with arms and legs walking around with guns. Ive seen plenty of guys stumble out of their 4x4 trying to aim at a deer. probably couldnt hit the broad side of the proverbial barn from 10 feet away.

Camouflaging yourself not to be seen from a animal is different than camouflaging yourself from a human. IMO military sniper against hunter sniper wins. If you just mean both men hidden searching for eachother over 2 square miles and 1000 yards apart its basicaly whoever sport the other guy first and has the better aim.

[swerv512]

Why does this thread even exist?:rolleyes:

even better sig line....

[maxwellca21]

this is like comparing apples and oranges.

[sniper5]

I have a taped interview of Carlos Hathcock being asked the same question and saying that there isn't any difference. Then going on to say that one of his assistant instructors was a hunter with no military experience that used to give the trainees a run for their money.

I also asked a varmint hunting buddy from back in the day (1970's) who had just returned from 'Nam after a tour as a Marine scout/sniper what the difference between what we were doing and what he did in 'Nam. He said "pretty much none". Then I asked about "the targets shooting back" part and he smiled and said "not if you do your job right".

[tankerman]

I also asked a varmint hunting buddy from back in the day (1970's) who had just returned from 'Nam after a tour as a Marine scout/sniper what the difference between what we were doing and what he did in 'Nam. He said "pretty much none". Then I asked about "the targets shooting back" part and he smiled and said "not if you do your job right".
Good point. I think most of the folks posting in this thread think that ALL snipers are involved in some kind of 'sniper dual' every time they go out. Just look at all the "targets shooting back" comments. Too many Hollywood movie sniper fantasies.

[darkjedi351]

Hunting people and hunting game are two completely different tasks. As for skill, the sniper has it all. hunters aren't taught to range targets with the mil dot system or even sit in classroom learning about hides, wind, terrain, shading, camo, etc. and then have to use it in a field training exercise. while their instructors critique them. I haven't heard of hunters taking a 1000 yrd shot either. apples and oranges joe. I hunt but i am not a sniper nor would i claim to be. those guys have way more skill!

[bigstick61]

Hunting people and hunting game are two completely different tasks. As for skill, the sniper has it all. hunters aren't taught to range targets with the mil dot system or even sit in classroom learning about hides, wind, terrain, shading, camo, etc. and then have to use it in a field training exercise. while their instructors critique them. I haven't heard of hunters taking a 1000 yrd shot either. apples and oranges joe. I hunt but i am not a sniper nor would i claim to be. those guys have way more skill!

Some hunters do gain a lot of that knowledge from field experience (not necessarily in thesame way or using the same techniques), especially professional ones who include dangerous game on the types of animals they hunt or guide others to hunt. A leopard is much more likely to see, smell, or hear you than a person, and you may not see or hear them until they're right on you, but you have to be able to sit there, find them, be patient, and take them out with one shot; going after a wounded leopard is no picnic. And I'm sure there are some of these hunters who shoot long range recreationally, which provides the needed skills (obviously in hunting the goal is to try to get as close as humanly possible without the animal knowing you are there, which is no easy task for those who actually get really close).

You know that Finnish sniper was a great competitive marksman and a hunter at the time he was put through a very quick sniper course and thrown in the field to fight the Soviets. Many of those skills no doubt are what gave him the edge. I'm pretty sure he knew nothing about the mildot system, although he did not even use a scope (and yet still got long range kills).

[The Director]

This reminds me of a question I asked when I was six years old: Which is stronger, a tiger or a lion?

A Liger, of course!

[Flogger23m]

If you mean killing humans, easy. The sniper.

Hunters practice to kill animals.

Snipers are trained to kill people.

People and animals behave differently.

Hunters generally do not train with things in mind, such as being shot at from enemies 400 meters or so away.



You know, that brings up another point. I've often wondered about a dependability/efficiency comparison between military sniper weapons and hunting rifles.



The M24 and M40 are Remington 700s.

The SR-25 and M110 are 7.62x51 ARs.

Not sure why you would think they would become more or less reliable depending on if a civilian or a soldier uses it...

[darkjedi351]

This really is a mall ninja post.... again, apples and oranges. sure during WWII the guys with hunting experience were the first picked to become sniper but todays military is much more advanced. Snipers are working in teams now and not the 1 or 2 man teams as they did before.
it's like the movie the 300. a hunter has a regular job. a snipers job is being a sniper.

[The Director]

Hunters generally do not train with things in mind, such as being shot at from enemies 400 meters or so away.




Taken to that extreme, some snipers don't train with such things in mind as putting a heart shot inside an elephant from 100 yards away while avoiding detection, knowing full well that if the shot misses by 12" either side he'll have 12,000 pounds of enraged pachyderm charging at him and almost certainly won't have time for a followup shot.

Dangerous game hunting isn't to be sneezed at.

[HUTCH 7.62]

This reminds me of a question I asked when I was six years old: Which is stronger, a tiger or a lion?

And this thread keeps on going in circles........

[rkt88edmo]

Where are all the ninjas and pirates in this scenario?

[jak77]

dumb question

[darkjedi351]

dumb question

I agree. Sounds like a MW2 type of question.

[GuyW]

I'm going to vote for the paid professional.

Why not? Worked well in the War of Independence.....
.

[JohanD]

bump! :D

I would vote sniper.

[IrishPirate]

The sniper has the advantage of very professional training and high end equipment.

The hunter has the advantage of experience.

hunting is mostly a pastime or sport and not all too often, a profession. all snipers do is snipe. day in, day out...sniping. whether in actual combat or in training.

any idiot with a rifle can wander into the woods and be a hunter. even if they've been wandering into woods for 30 years....that doesn't make them anything special.

snipers are a specialized position in the military that requires more than just being able to look through a scope and pull a trigger.


ANSWER: The sniper could pick off the hunter before he got out of his truck and would take a deer down before the hunter knew there was a deer in the area.

[bigstick61]

This really is a mall ninja post.... again, apples and oranges. sure during WWII the guys with hunting experience were the first picked to become sniper but todays military is much more advanced. Snipers are working in teams now and not the 1 or 2 man teams as they did before.
it's like the movie the 300. a hunter has a regular job. a snipers job is being a sniper.

For some hunters, hunting is their regular job. I think for this sort of comparison, it is best to compare two professionals, rather than a professional and an amateur. A professional hunter in Africa will have experience with cover, camouflage and concealment, will have experience stalking and tracking animals (and sometimes humans), will have had to hunt animals which could easily kill him in ways which would make a death by a single bullet a relative blessing, will have had to hide out or go after animals which can see better and further than he can, hear better, and smell better, and at times will have to sit patiently still and silent for many hours. He will generally be fit and know his way outdoors. It is also likely that he will have had to fight off people at some point in his career as a hunter, and he may even have combat experience either as a merc or a soldier (say in the SADF or RA or something, or even in a non-African military). He will have to have good marksmanship skills and need to be able to kill dangerous animals with one shot under considerable pressure with major time constraints. An African PH's job is nothing to sneer at.

I'm only playing devil's advocate here because I think people are grossly underestimating what a good hunter can do. A hunter who makes a career out of hunting or guiding hunts of game, including dangerous and big game, in areas where he may also run into armed criminals, rebels, or terrorists, will have developed many of the skills the a sniper needs to have.

Taken to that extreme, some snipers don't train with such things in mind as putting a heart shot inside an elephant from 100 yards away while avoiding detection, knowing full well that if the shot misses by 12" either side he'll have 12,000 pounds of enraged pachyderm charging at him and almost certainly won't have time for a followup shot.

Dangerous game hunting isn't to be sneezed at.


Exactly. Some people are saying that hunters don't find themselves in situations where extreme stealth is needed, followed by the need to make one shot kills at variable ranges against animals which can find and kill them in much worse ways than a bullet can, and thus have to shoot under heavy stress and time pressure, especially if they end up facing a charge, as some of these dangerous animals can close wide distances faster than it takes for a person to be able to make a follow-up shot. While this is obviously not true of the majority of hunters, it does apply to a number of hunters out there, and some do this job almost every day.

I recall a story by Peter Capstick about a time he had to hunt a leopard (and I sort of mentioned this earlier). He had to make a hide and stay there for hours in absolute stillness and silence (in spite of the flies constantly biting him). It turns out the leopard knew he was in the area, and actually left to try to hunt HIM down and ended up coming from behind Capstick's hide and was almost on top of him. The reason why Captick was not discovered was because he kept his nerve and stayed dead still and quiet, and he had the winds in his favor, which delivered his scent away from the leopard. The leopard then went towards a tree where he had his meat, and Capstick took him with one shot. He pointed out he had to take off his watch, because a leopard has such good hearing that he can actually hear the ticking of a watch some distance away.

[Maddog5150]

Not this crap again. I think this thread is mostly a feel good one about giving self kudos and fantasize that there is a possibility that they could take out of a sniper. Yeah a fricken charging cape is dangerous but it doesnt exactly hide, you can avoid it by not hunting it, and if its several hundred meters away its not going to shoot bullets at you.
Yeah yeah yeah, hunters find themselves in extreme stealth, any of you **** your pants after a few days so you wouldnt move? Nevermind, I think some people here would do it at the range to be tacticool :rolleyes:

[MrEd]

Hellfire Missile loaded on a Predator , that is who would win

[JDay]

The sniper has the advantage of very professional training and high end equipment.

The hunter has the advantage of experience.

Snipers have tons of experience from the constant training they do.

One area the sniper would probably win is extended range around say...800-1000 yards. But then a lot of civilian marksman can hit targets at that distance just as easily, some with iron sights even.

On a clear day with no wind on level ground maybe but a lot changes when you start shooting those distances from different angles. Especially with different wind speed/direction in multiple places down range. And how many civilian marksmen do you know who know what a slope doper is, let alone the formula they need to put that angle into? This really is no contest.

[JDay]

What if you are a trained Sniper who is a hunter?

By definition snipers are hunters. This is why they learn how to stalk.

[JDay]

Hunter would win because the hunter would have a better selection of calibers to pick from 7.62 is not gonna cut it for large game at say 1000 yards

You act like snipers don't have access to big guns.

[The Director]

You guys realize that some of the best shooters in the world have never been in the military or law enforcement.....right?

The Jerry Miculeks, the Ed McGiverns, the Elmer Keiths.....Many people like this were called in to train the military.

The world record for a 10 shot group at 1000 yards is held by a civilian - 3.048" (Joel Pendergraft)....

And finally, one of the most successful snipers of WW2, Simo Hayha, was already an accomplished award winning marksman and Hunter before joining the war and knocking of 505 soviets.

I know, hard pill to swallow for all the .mil folks. Military snipers are good, no doubt. Just don't forget there are civilian shooters who are just as good if not better.

[Grassninja]

You guys realize that some of the best shooters in the world have never been in the military or law enforcement.....right?

The Jerry Miculeks, the Ed McGiverns, the Elmer Keiths.....Many people like this were called in to train the military.

The world record for a 10 shot group at 1000 yards is held by a civilian - 3.048" (Joel Pendergraft)....

And finally, one of the most successful snipers of WW2, Simo Hayha, was already an accomplished award winning marksman and Hunter before joining the war and knocking of 505 soviets.

I know, hard pill to swallow for all the .mil folks. Military snipers are good, no doubt. Just don't forget there are civilian shooters who are just as good if not better.

I don't think it's the .mil folks that have the misconceived notion that snipers, or any other "special" type of soldier, have some magical ability to destroy everyone that's never been trained by a military institution. You don't drink some special punch and turn into superman after graduating S/S course.

Military snipers are excellent shots, but this skill is far from the only thing they perform. You can find many civilians who can shoot just as well, or better, than mil snipers. This isn't necessarily what makes a sniper though. Anyone who thinks snipers just go out and shoot bad guys at long ranges is missing 99% of the picture. Their primary job these days almost always begins as surveillance/intel gathering, or providing overwatch/guardian angel for grunt units and PSD. It involves an entirely different set of skills, most of which do not require a rifle so much as a keen set of eyes and a working radio.

There will always be exceptions to everything, so this really is an endless debate. The only way to solve this would be to have a Hunter vs Sniper episode on that Deadliest Warrior TV show. :rolleyes:

[The Director]

^ Good post. I agree.

[Maddog5150]

You guys realize that some of the best shooters in the world have never been in the military or law enforcement.....right?

The Jerry Miculeks, the Ed McGiverns, the Elmer Keiths.....Many people like this were called in to train the military.

The world record for a 10 shot group at 1000 yards is held by a civilian - 3.048" (Joel Pendergraft)....

And finally, one of the most successful snipers of WW2, Simo Hayha, was already an accomplished award winning marksman and Hunter before joining the war and knocking of 505 soviets.

I know, hard pill to swallow for all the .mil folks. Military snipers are good, no doubt. Just don't forget there are civilian shooters who are just as good if not better.

you realize most those people have never done the stuff snipers have had to do also correct? Or most any military servicemember. Just because someone is a great shot on a range doesnt mean they can or will apply that when **** counts.

[The Director]

^ They're all amazing shots under pressure. McGivern did incredible things in front of crowds of thousands. True, he wasn't being shot at at the time, but neither is a good sniper if he's doing his job.

This really is a ridiculous argument in the end. Human talent with a firearm belies any nation, creed, employment or circumstance. Either a person is a skilled shooter, tracker, woodsman...or he isn't.

[GuyW]

Gee - why am I so resistant to the idea that all skill and knowledge flows from the gooberment??

.

[The Director]

Gee - why am I so resistant to the idea that all skill and knowledge flows from the gooberment??

.

Doesn't it?:p:D

[Maddog5150]

You know Director, seems from the posts I have read from you that you really want to be seen as a comando. Not bagging on you as this is really an observation. You got very defensive in the mall ninja thread a few months back getting your feathers ruffled when we were poking fun at actual mall ninjas and got overly protective about your tacticool clothing in the thread about being camo'd out at the range. Now here it seems you are trying desperately to prove a point that a sportsman is just as skilled or superior to a military sniper.
Are you one of these militia joes planning on overthrowing the government? Are you a tactical tommy in a basement somewhere who just really feels he has a purpose to walk around the mall in the burlap? Or are you really chuck norris and that much of a badass? Just curious as all hell.

[The Director]

You know Director, seems from the posts I have read from you that you really want to be seen as a comando. Not bagging on you as this is really an observation. You got very defensive in the mall ninja thread a few months back getting your feathers ruffled when we were poking fun at actual mall ninjas and got overly protective about your tacticool clothing in the thread about being camo'd out at the range. Now here it seems you are trying desperately to prove a point that a sportsman is just as skilled or superior to a military sniper.
Are you one of these militia joes planning on overthrowing the government? Are you a tactical tommy in a basement somewhere who just really feels he has a purpose to walk around the mall in the burlap? Or are you really chuck norris and that much of a badass? Just curious as all hell.

It's classified. :p

Seriously, though, if I recall correctly you were the one in the mall ninja thread who was poo pooing the civilian ownership of tactical gear, as if the sum total of tactical and firearms knowledge resides in the military. You've made it clear in this point that you feel it simply isn't possible for a mortal who hasn't gone through basic training to ever be proficient with a firearm, while at the same time ignoring history like the story of Simo Hayha - the farmer that killed more soldiers than any other sniper in WW2.

What you don't seem to understand is that you do disservice to the people who rebelled against the English to found this country...the original militia, minutemen, and citizen soldiers who kicked butt all over the organized, professional English army.

As much as I am a supporter of the military, I think each of us has a responsibility to own the necessary gear and get the necessary training we need in order to defend our families. If you think that means playing dressup or being a "commando" as you put it then that's your opinion.

I'm not a member of any club, militia, or organization where it pertains to firearms. I'm just prepared, that's all.

So laugh it up if you must, and remember the armed citizenry of this country outnumbers the professional soldier by about 5000 to one. ;)

[Maddog5150]

Actually I was saying I dont care what people wear and you just made assumptions because I didnt bother to answer you and if you go back in the the camo'd out thread, I said a few times that people have the right to wear what they want and I along with other calgunners have the right to laugh. Simo Hayha was one out of a million, hunting for him also was a hell of a lot different from the GPS and match grade weaponry with high powered scopes so he had to be more skilled.
Yes this country was founded on the citizen soldier but there was never any forms of training then as there were today. You simply discredit the sniper to support a red dawn fantasy you have somewhere which btw, seems that you do enjoy by the last line in your coment. As far as me not thinking that people shoot better because of basic? Where the **** did you pull that from? I for one will freely admit that I do not have the skills of a sniper. I would never pretend to be something I am not nor **** on someone because I dont have the skills. Ex, you wont hear me saying, "who do you think would really win nascar, dale jr or the trucker who drives 24/7?"
What you dont understand is that I would laugh at the silly rantings of this thread if I never wore a uniform at all. Its purely mall ninja and retarded.

[hunteran]

You know Director, seems from the posts I have read from you that you really want to be seen as a comando. Not bagging on you as this is really an observation. You got very defensive in the mall ninja thread a few months back getting your feathers ruffled when we were poking fun at actual mall ninjas and got overly protective about your tacticool clothing in the thread about being camo'd out at the range. Now here it seems you are trying desperately to prove a point that a sportsman is just as skilled or superior to a military sniper.
Are you one of these militia joes planning on overthrowing the government? Are you a tactical tommy in a basement somewhere who just really feels he has a purpose to walk around the mall in the burlap? Or are you really chuck norris and that much of a badass? Just curious as all hell.

+1

This thread is full of fail...

[CavTrooper]

So laugh it up if you must, and remember the armed citizenry of this country outnumbers the professional soldier by about 5000 to one. ;)

Maybe. But we have air support and fema camps! :eek:

[CavTrooper]

+1

This thread is full of fail...

werd.

[The Director]

What you dont understand is that I would laugh at the silly rantings of this thread if I never wore a uniform at all. Its purely mall ninja and retarded.


Maddog 5150 has spoken, and thus declared an end to this thread. Did you hear him? It's retarded! Now go back to your lives, citizens.

Hey don't post if you don't like it. Not sure where you got Red Dawn from either. Didn't even like that movie when it came out.

[The Director]

Maybe. But we have air support and fema camps! :eek:

And missiles and rockets and airplanes!:D:D

[CavTrooper]

Not sure where you got Red Dawn from either. Didn't even like that movie when it came out.


THANK YOU!

How anyone can watch that piece of crap is beyond me!

[CavTrooper]

And missiles and rockets and airplanes!:D:D

Dont forget about the tigers.

[The Director]

You also forgot predator drones and a whole detachment of psy ops troops dedicated to mind control:TFH::TFH:

[CavTrooper]

You also forgot predator drones and a whole detachment of psy ops troops dedicated to mind control:TFH::TFH:

Lazer beams.

We have frickin lazer beams.

[fegves2id]

Guys, This would be a hillarious theme for the Deadliest Warrior.

The way that show goes sometimes (gladiator got beat by an apache?!!) it would be a toss up.

Just remember, there are guys who have more talent and who shoot enough who are not in the military. I think the kind of comparison that is being made is similar to this:

Who would win, a professional MMA fighter or a common street thug? Well, I would not put money on the professional fighter until I saw the street thug he was going against. Even then maybe the pro fighter is a chump who is not talented.The same is true of a civilian hunter/shooter and a military sniper. Sniper has much more training than the average hunter, but what about the pro-hunter/sportsman? Both are easily capable of "winning". This is a silly comparison obviously, but good for laughs. Definately "full of fail". LOL.

[fegves2id]

After posting my last, I then read the last few pages......EVERYTHING I wrote and was considering writing has already been stated. Man, I am not needed here. Good work. Hah.

[JDay]

Lazer beams.

We have frickin lazer beams.

But we still haven't mastered the shark technology.

[Marine oifvet]

I've been thinking about this. If you pitted a professional hunter with all available gear to choose from versus a military sniper and his gear, who do you think would be better?

The sniper has the advantage of very professional training and high end equipment.

The hunter has the advantage of experience.

One area the sniper would probably win is extended range around say...800-1000 yards. But then a lot of civilian marksman can hit targets at that distance just as easily, some with iron sights even.

Lets put the competition to around 200-600 yards.

As for weapons, any weapon is applicable.

You know, that brings up another point. I've often wondered about a dependability/efficiency comparison between military sniper weapons and hunting rifles.

Anyways, discuss.

I want to know who can hit body sized targets at 800-1000yds with open sights? At that range a body is smaller than a front post sight! I need to buy that man a beer!

[CavTrooper]

I want to know who can hit body sized targets at 800-1000yds with open sights? At that range a body is smaller than a front post sight! I need to buy that man a beer!

I can.

Ya owe me a beer.

[AngelEyes300]

I have been involved in both communities...a hunter can make a good sniper but is not one. A sniper is a man tracker and a taker of human life. two completly different things. Ingenuity and innovation is taken to a whole new level to corner your quarry as a sniper and it will be different every time. As a hunter you build a basic foundation to "hunt", imagine that. But a deer is not creative they have certain things that they do and that is it,more predictable. With that said, some of the best marksman of all time in the military had been former hunters, audie murphy etc.

[Decoligny]

Here is what I'm thinking.

I'm imagining a competition of skill.

I wouldn't consider people who drive around and kill whatever shows up to be true hunters.

I've seen shows on all those sporting channels of real hunters who sit and wait for hours for the right animal to come along. I've seen hunters who stalk their prey, have all the cammo crap, and all sorts of technical doodads to stalk what their after.

And then it doesn't take military training to teach yourself to hit targets out to 1000 yards either.

So back to the skill. A sniper has his rifle, camo suit, technical stuff, and his training/experience. Then the hunter has his rifle, camo suit, his technical stuff and his training/experience.

I'm leaning towards the sniper being better mostly from stereotypes of snipers being elite long distance killing machines. But why? What makes the sniper any better?

Both people have to sneak around and be silent, they have to blend in and hide, they have to be able to kill or disable in one shot, and they have to be able to reach out to considerable distances.

If the hunter screws up here, the animal runs away, maybe he even gets a second chance if the animal is unsure of what put him on edge.

The sniper on the other hand, if he screws up, will most likely be taking heavy fire.

There is a major difference in mindset. Looking through a scope and squeezing off a round to take out a white-tail is a hell of lot different that looking through a scope and squeezing off a round to take out another human being.

Sniper any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[The Director]

If the hunter screws up here, the animal runs away, maybe he even gets a second chance if the animal is unsure of what put him on edge.

The sniper on the other hand, if he screws up, will most likely be taking heavy fire.

There is a major difference in mindset. Looking through a scope and squeezing off a round to take out a white-tail is a hell of lot different that looking through a scope and squeezing off a round to take out another human being.

Sniper any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

What's with the deer hunting allusion again? The comparison you should use is a dangerous game hunter. Your whole argument is based on the hunter shooting some game animal that won't come charging back at him.

All I'm saying is that for anyone hunting Grizzly, to some degree moose, and certainly any dangerous game in Africa such as elephant, the big cats, or cape buffalo, you have a similar scenario.

You must get in close to the quarry while avoiding detection. Each of these animals hear and smell better than you do even if their vision isn't as good. You have probably one chance to squeeze off a shot, and that's it. Why? 'Cause if you've been hunting, you'll know that you need to hit heart / lungs / spine on the first shot, because if whatever it is you shot at turns and charges (and these animals have an uncanny ability to charge where the shot came from)they will be facing you and there is no good way to get a shot off....in many cases the bone is too thick and sloped for any size bullet to penetrate. It will merely make the charging animal more angry.

So is a hunter better than a sniper? I'd say generally no.

Still, it's foolish to dismiss a dangerous game hunter out of hand as he possesses much of the same skill set as a sniper. And all dangerous game is hunted MUCH closer than sniper shots out of necessity. You don't take grizzly at 1000 yards. you take him at 50-100. Definitely makes you check your underwear after it's all over.

[bigstick61]

What's with the deer hunting allusion again? The comparison you should use is a dangerous game hunter. Your whole argument is based on the hunter shooting some game animal that won't come charging back at him.

All I'm saying is that for anyone hunting Grizzly, to some degree moose, and certainly any dangerous game in Africa such as elephant, the big cats, or cape buffalo, you have a similar scenario.

You must get in close to the quarry while avoiding detection. Each of these animals hear and smell better than you do even if their vision isn't as good. You have probably one chance to squeeze off a shot, and that's it. Why? 'Cause if you've been hunting, you'll know that you need to hit heart / lungs / spine on the first shot, because if whatever it is you shot at turns and charges (and these animals have an uncanny ability to charge where the shot came from)they will be facing you and there is no good way to get a shot off....in many cases the bone is too thick and sloped for any size bullet to penetrate. It will merely make the charging animal more angry.

So is a hunter better than a sniper? I'd say generally no.

Still, it's foolish to dismiss a dangerous game hunter out of hand as he possesses much of the same skill set as a sniper. And all dangerous game is hunted MUCH closer than sniper shots out of necessity. You don't take grizzly at 1000 yards. you take him at 50-100. Definitely makes you check your underwear after it's all over.

And sometimes in those cases, the animal you are hunting is also hunting you. This happens with the big cats sometimes.

[Marine oifvet]

I can.

Ya owe me a beer.

Nice try! I said body sized target, not the side of a barn.

[Marine oifvet]

When I was in Fallujah,Iraq I was an FO for a Marine Scout Sniper team. I saw thier ablities frist hand, I have also been a hunter most of my life. The gear and training the sniper gets before put into action, is 100 times what daddy showed you before you got your 1st. deer.
This makes for some interesting talk, but in reality you CANNOT compare the two. Like I said, I have been on the front lines and killing a human IS way more intense than killing an animal. TRAINING!!

[nrvnqsrxk]

I would say sniper, because they train, train, and train some more. One vs. one? My money goes to the soldier.

[Maddog5150]

What's with the deer hunting allusion again? The comparison you should use is a dangerous game hunter. Your whole argument is based on the hunter shooting some game animal that won't come charging back at him.

All I'm saying is that for anyone hunting Grizzly, to some degree moose, and certainly any dangerous game in Africa such as elephant, the big cats, or cape buffalo, you have a similar scenario.

You must get in close to the quarry while avoiding detection. Each of these animals hear and smell better than you do even if their vision isn't as good. You have probably one chance to squeeze off a shot, and that's it. Why? 'Cause if you've been hunting, you'll know that you need to hit heart / lungs / spine on the first shot, because if whatever it is you shot at turns and charges (and these animals have an uncanny ability to charge where the shot came from)they will be facing you and there is no good way to get a shot off....in many cases the bone is too thick and sloped for any size bullet to penetrate. It will merely make the charging animal more angry.

So is a hunter better than a sniper? I'd say generally no.

Still, it's foolish to dismiss a dangerous game hunter out of hand as he possesses much of the same skill set as a sniper. And all dangerous game is hunted MUCH closer than sniper shots out of necessity. You don't take grizzly at 1000 yards. you take him at 50-100. Definitely makes you check your underwear after it's all over.

Dangerous game hunters usually have a guide with a back up rifle in case the hunter doesnt kill the charging animal, in some places its illegal to hunt without a guide so that the hunter wont get hurt.

[bigstick61]

Like I mentioned, if we're talking about a professional sniper, perhaps it would be best to have a professional hunter be the other side of the coin. Professional dangerous game hunters in Africa have to have many of the skills necessary for a sniper or they will not last very long. It's a pretty dangerous job, actually.


I've actually forgotten, is the OP about a duel between a hunter and a sniper, or a comparison of their potential results on the typical targets of a sniper?

[The Director]

Dangerous game hunters usually have a guide with a back up rifle in case the hunter doesnt kill the charging animal, in some places its illegal to hunt without a guide so that the hunter wont get hurt.

This is true.

[Rogerbutthead]

The very best hunter against the very best sniper would be an interesting duel.

An average hunter against an average sniper - no one would bet on the hunter - without heavy odds.

[bigstick61]

The very best hunter against the very best sniper would be an interesting duel.

An average hunter against an average sniper - no one would bet on the hunter - without heavy odds.

Pretty much. The average hunter is unlikely to be able to beat a sniper in either a duel or in a comparison of success against the enemy. On the other hand a great hunter with the right skillsets required for what he does and with much experience under his belt, can definitely give a good sniper a run for his money. I think it all comes down to the criteria and how you set the whole "competition" up.

[Draankol]

Sniper.

[xrMike]

It would all depend on who had the Glock, or the 1911.

Whoever had the 1911 would win.